21 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderSpain and Portugal did retain right-wing dictatorships for decades after the war, but those dictatorships had already taken power in the 1930s. The only European country in which the authoritarian right actually came to power in the postwar era was Greece, and then relatively briefly. I think the decisive defeat of Hitler and Mussolini suggested that fascism was not a viable choice for postwar Europe.
That wasn't the only choice in Europe; both Spain and Portugal had fascist dictatorships before and after the war. The idea that "liberal democracy" would have taken root in a place like Rumania or Bulgaria immediately after WWII seems unlikely to me. It seems more likely than would have returned to monarchies (real ones not show ones) or military dictatorships such as existed in Poland before the war.
You may of course be right that some right-wing authoritarian regimes would have come to power in postwar Eastern Europe. But a) I think these would most likely have been based in local nationalisms, so the region would probably have ended up a patchwork of dictatorships and democracies, which would have been better than the actual outcome of uniform dictatorship; and b) if (most of) Eastern Europe had ended up under Anglo-American influence, then the Western allies would have been pushing quite hard for democratic outcomes, and Marshall plan funding would have been used to cement stability and prosperity there as it was on the other side of the continent.
Needless to say, I continue to agree that Soviet influence in Eastern Europe wasn't the worst thing that happened in the world after 1945!
21 Nov 11
Originally posted by dryhumpAlthough, as Kazet suggests, deterrence may arguably have prevented a third world war on the scale of the first two.
I was thinking of suggesting this myself. Certainly the resulting cold war led to a military buildup of massive proportions which, it could be argued, has led to the endless wars of the 20th century.
21 Nov 11
The globalisation of food is the biggest of all. Think about it for a while.
In the Netherlands the green bean for example, is a vegetable that grows in the summer. That counts for a lot of other vegetables. In the other seasons it comes from the area of Mount Kenya. There are many other poor areas where we get our food from.
Kenya suffers every year of tremendous water shortage. The little water coming from Mount Kenya helped to keep the locals in the area alive. Now all the water is tapped for the export of green beans to the Netherlands, leaving a dry wasteland behind, people die by the dozens each day for that matter and it destroys all kinds of cultures. Now, that's just Mount Kenya.
Same can be said about the soja beans in Brazil. The Amazone jungle has lost the size of France for this sort of plantations. What do we do with the soja beans? We use it mainly for feeding our pigs. Indians have lost there habitats and get killed if they resist.
The enormous Philipine mangroves are destroyed for endless shrimp plantations, leaving the local fishermen dirt poor. They have legal rights, but even if they try, they will lose always from the rich plantation owners.
The cultivation, transport, use of chemicals of all this food is a total disaster beyond your imagination.
21 Nov 11
Originally posted by dryhumpIf you look at the rest of human history, not much has changed, except how total the destruction can be.
I was thinking of suggesting this myself. Certainly the resulting cold war led to a military buildup of massive proportions which, it could be argued, has led to the endless wars of the 20th century.
On the positive side, look at the casualty rates from Vietnam, compared to Iraq/Afghanistan.
There is a historical look as types of warfare. The Zulus used to "fight" from a distance with spears. There was seldom anyone hurt, the larger force pushed the smaller off, and things were settled. When Shaka changed all that with a short swordlike weapon, and flanking tactics, warfare became more bloody.
We might also look at nuclear proliferation as having shortstopped many possible wars.
21 Nov 11
Originally posted by SakeKenya's troubles are the troubles of the African continent in recorded history, and until Europeans began going to Africa, little was written in Sub Saharan Africa due to an almost total lack of written languages.
The globalisation of food is the biggest of all. Think about it for a while.
In the Netherlands the green bean for example, is a vegetable that grows in the summer. That counts for a lot of other vegetables. In the other seasons it comes from the area of Mount Kenya. There are many other poor areas where we get our food from.
Kenya suffers every year of tre ...[text shortened]... tion, transport, use of chemicals of all this food is a total disaster beyond your imagination.
There are few Mountains and almost no mountain ranges in Africa, and this makes water dispersion a problem. There are floods in the rainy season, and drought the rest of the year. There are other native geographic problems, including few natural harbors, almost no navigable rivers, and prior to colonialism shallow coastal waters. Almost any goods need to be transported over land. And then the lack of written language, which still persists in some areas.
For some perspective that I don't have time to give, try reading "Conquest and Cultures" Thomas Sowell.
22 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignArabs (who were literate) were in Africa long before Europeans.
Kenya's troubles are the troubles of the African continent in recorded history, and until Europeans began going to Africa, little was written in Sub Saharan Africa due to an almost total lack of written languages.
There are few Mountains and almost no mountain ranges in Africa, and this makes water dispersion a problem. There are floods in the rainy s ...[text shortened]... spective that I don't have time to give, try reading "Conquest and Cultures" Thomas Sowell.
http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ab65
22 Nov 11
Originally posted by normbenignWhat I ment is this: the little water coming from the mountains and what is desperately needed for the local population, is transported to Europe in the form of veggies. It's not just Kenya or mountains, it's the outcome of Western business and their politics throughout the whole world. Don't you think it's world class arrogance, to grow food in a poor hungry country and instead of feeding the people there, transport the lot to Europe? The little money they make is used to pay their dept to the West, which is never enough.
Kenya's troubles are the troubles of the African continent in recorded history, and until Europeans began going to Africa, little was written in Sub Saharan Africa due to an almost total lack of written languages.
There are few Mountains and almost no mountain ranges in Africa, and this makes water dispersion a problem. There are floods in the rainy s ...[text shortened]... spective that I don't have time to give, try reading "Conquest and Cultures" Thomas Sowell.
22 Nov 11
Originally posted by SakeIt's probably world class arrogance to claim that "Western companies" are ruling the world. What about corrupt African officials, and lack of democracy? This is the root of the problem - with an effective democracy, the Kenyan people would be able to decide how they want to allocate their water, and neither Western companies nor Dutch green bean consumers would be able to do anything about it.
What I ment is this: the little water coming from the mountains and what is desperately needed for the local population, is transported to Europe in the form of veggies. It's not just Kenya or mountains, it's the outcome of Western business and their politics throughout the whole world. Don't you think it's world class arrogance, to grow food in a poor hungry c ...[text shortened]... pe? The little money they make is used to pay their dept to the West, which is never enough.
It's a few steps above world class arrogance to claim that it's fine if the Dutch destroy all their nature - 95% of the country is either urban or agriculture, and the standard of living is very high - but if the Brazilians cut a part of the Amazon forest for food production it's a terrible thing. People have to eat, you know.
22 Nov 11
Truth is we don't care how they govern their nations, as long as we get what we want. Look at Shell and Nigeria for instance. If we are so damned righteous, why do we pay these gangsters?
The problem is that the locals remain dirt poor and hungry, besides a few landlords and trading companies.
And yes we ruined our country while we shouldn't. Doesn't mean that we are not partly responsible for what's happening somewhere else.
22 Nov 11
Originally posted by SakeI would favour legislation that would help punish corporations who bribe foreign officials, however this requires cooperation on a global scale, otherwise corporations just move to where they are allowed to do what they want. But to put the blame for abuses solely at corporations like Shell is too simplistic.
Truth is we don't care how they govern their nations, as long as we get what we want. Look at Shell and Nigeria for instance. If we are so damned righteous, why do we pay these gangsters?
The problem is that the locals remain dirt poor and hungry, besides a few landlords and trading companies.
And yes we ruined our country while we shouldn't. Doesn't mean that we are not partly responsible for what's happening somewhere else.
And having one of the highest standards of living is being "ruined"? Seriously?
22 Nov 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIt requires the guts to make descisions on your own. If you believe something is wrong, don't do it then. Now it's 'if I don't do it, somebody else will, so I must do it.' Such nonsense. A corporation should accept it can't be as big as it could be. So what? A clear conscience is more meaningful today than ever.
I would favour legislation that would help punish corporations who bribe foreign officials, however this requires cooperation on a global scale, otherwise corporations just move to where they are allowed to do what they want. But to put the blame for abuses solely at corporations like Shell is too simplistic.
And having one of the highest standards of living is being "ruined"? Seriously?
Waiting at global descisions............you know how long that takes, and worse, nothing will happen then for the poor countries.
And yes, more simplicity please!
Naturewise the country is ruined. There's not a single square meter not touched/changed by human hands in the Netherlands. The 'nature' left (5% according to you, I thought it was more), is planted. Fact.
I believe a high standard of living should not be the goal at all.
Back on your earlier note about the need to eat: I believe food should come as much as possible from ones own soil. That means we should eat more seasonbound food. Strawberries in the summer, red cabbage in the winter. I know, not a very pleasant idea, but a necesarry one.
22 Nov 11
Originally posted by SakeIt requires the guts to make descisions on your own. If you believe something is wrong, don't do it then.
It requires the guts to make descisions on your own. If you believe something is wrong, don't do it then. Now it's 'if I don't do it, somebody else will, so I must do it.' Such nonsense. A corporation should accept it can't be as big as it could be. So what? A clear conscience is more meaningful today than ever.
Waiting at global descisions............you know ...[text shortened]... mer, red cabbage in the winter. I know, not a very pleasant idea, but a necesarry one.
Yes, I agree. Unfortunately slogans are not solutions - the question is, given that there are corporations with an incentive to make money (given by society), how do you turn that incentive into something that benefits society (on a global scale)? "Don't kill anyone" is not a "solution" to the problem of how to minimize homicide even though most people would agree with it.
Naturewise the country is ruined. There's not a single square meter not touched/changed by human hands in the Netherlands. The 'nature' left (5% according to you, I thought it was more), is planted. Fact.
I believe a high standard of living should not be the goal at all.
Boo hoo. Maybe you should try living in the jungles of Congo, see what you like better. Or heck, you could do the same as me and move to Northern Europe - and I don't even give a toss about nature.
If a high standard of living is not a goal, then I am very curious as to what you think the goal of a government ought to be.
Back on your earlier note about the need to eat: I believe food should come as much as possible from ones own soil. That means we should eat more seasonbound food. Strawberries in the summer, red cabbage in the winter. I know, not a very pleasant idea, but a necesarry one.
Oh please. The world can very easily produce enough food to sustain 50 billion people, and we can do it sustainably. Do you have any idea how much potential is wasted through inefficient farming techniques, poor irrigation, poor fertilization, overuse/improper use of soil, ineffective government, etc. etc. etc.? Putting some food on a ship or lorry really doesn't take THAT much energy. (I also dread the thought of having to eat only Finnish produce, Finns aren't exactly renowned for their culinary expertise)
22 Nov 11
2 edits
Originally posted by SakeWhen I was last in the Netherlands, in the days when you had to fly to Eindhoven to get a cheap fare, the journey to Amsterdam passed through at least an hour's worth of very picturesque farmland. Ruined? Changed, I'd say. And the Netherlands is actually rather bigger than it would naturally have been due to the actions of people in reclaiming land. What were they doing? Ruining the sea?
Naturewise the country is ruined. There's not a single square meter not touched/changed by human hands in the Netherlands. The 'nature' left (5% according to you, I thought it was more), is planted. Fact.
I believe a high standard of living should not be the goal at all.
Back on your earlier note about the need to eat: I believe food should come as much as ...[text shortened]... he summer, red cabbage in the winter. I know, not a very pleasant idea, but a necesarry one.
The patchwork of fields in southern England is prettier than a lot of wilderness, in my opinion. And probably the most beautiful landscape in Britain, the Lake District in north-west England, was once all forested. Its stark, bare loveliness is not natural, but the result of a thousand years of fruitful interaction between nature and man.
That's not necessarily to take issue with your advocacy of eating seasonally and living simply. But I don't see why we should sentimentalise nature. I can't think of any natural landscape that I think as beautiful as... well, as the canals and gables of Amsterdam!
22 Nov 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorraSurely that has nothing to do with Finnish produce, and everything to do with Finnish cooking!
Putting some food on a ship or lorry really doesn't take THAT much energy. (I also dread the thought of having to eat only Finnish produce, Finns aren't exactly renowned for their culinary expertise)